Blue-chip slam ladder
Whisper
Sampras 12
Federer 12
Borg 11
Tilden 10
Nadal 9
This is the top 5 all time, not just open era. Rafa is outright 5th,
only 3 off the record.
RzR
cheapskate should be second on that list since H2H in "blue chip" slam
is 0:1 vs federer
kaennorsing
Good point. I'm sure Whisper agrees too, as he so vehemently defends
the h2h as a tiebreaker now... And that surely settles it then that
Federer is so obviously much greater as well as clearly better than
Sampras.
felangey
> the h2h as a tiebreaker now... And that surely settles it then that
> Federer is so obviously much greater as well as clearly better than
> Sampras<
Fin! :)
John Liang
If you go back a few years ago FO wasn't even considered as blue chip
by Whispy there was only USO and W.
GOYLE
What is a Blue-Chip slam? In all my many years I have only heard of
Blue-Chip on rst.
Gracchus
> What is a Blue-Chip slam? In all my many years I have only heard of
> Blue-Chip on rst.
That's probably the only place you'll ever hear of it. Someone got the
idea that casting the AO as a lesser slam would make good revisionist
fodder for a now-resurrected dead horse.
Whisper
I've always said it's only slam finals that count. Fed never beat
Sampras in a slam final.
Whisper
Incorrect. FO has always been a blue-chip.
You need to stop lying to this ng - it's easy to check up on archives.
RzR
lol yeah right...unless finals play by the different rules than 1st
round- semifinals they i can agree...if they dont then your theory is crap
a slam match is a slam match is a slam match...
Whisper
It means the 3 biggest slams.
Whisper
If we convert this to 7543 scores;
Sampras 74
Federer 71
Borg 59
Tilden 56
Nadal 43
7543 measures the quality of slams won.
RzR
once fed got 15th slam, it was all over for poor pete...it could happen
to fed too, unless he gets one more good run :)
kaennorsing
You've said so many contradictory things that we should only listen to
what you said most frequently and recently. And that's obviously that
h2h proves who the better player is... Meaning Fed is better as well
as greater than Sampras.
Whisper
No it's not. If that were true we'd remember every slam match ever
played in every rd, not just a handful. We don't care.
Whisper
No, I've always said it's only slam finals.
The rest is just background noise.
RzR
its over for sampras...just accept it and move on to cheering for
someone to take rafa out of slams before he can rack up 15, because then
sampras will be in 3rd place overall
and it all looked soo good a few years ago didnt it? :))))))))
undecided
In Whisper's defense, JMac constantly mentions (while he is
commentating) that no one played the AO back in the 70s and even 80s.
He said it was of lesser importance than some of the Masters events
even.
Gracchus
> In Whisper's defense, JMac constantly mentions (while he is
> commentating) that no one played the AO back in the 70s and even 80s.
> He said it was of lesser importance than some of the Masters events
> even.
The agenda is pretty obvious, isn't it? Suddenly, one of the slams is
no longer a "real" slam. Suddenly, Federer is tied with Sampras again.
Suddenly, Federer only leads Nadal by three slams. Oh, but wait,
there's that h2h thing, so Sampras and Nadal both in effect lead
Federer now.
Whisper loves this kind of shell game. He's been playing it for years.
Patrick Kehoe
G-man... Joe can show you where to buy blue chips... not sure they
taste that good though...
P
Iceberg
no, that was post-retirement for Sampras.
Iceberg
yes that is why 7543 really needs a bit of revision. most after 2002
should be IDEFIX (for clown era).
Quincy
Erghh Whisper.... So you just need one win to win a slam, not 7, right?
RzR
lol
no it wasnt
fed sent him there lol
RzR
hahaha you are delusional as usual
Patrick Kehoe
W's Blue Chip special: http://kenyantykoon.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/blue-chip-cookie.jpg
P
AliAsoag
Whisper surely meant, in Sampras' case, whenever he wanted (which was
not the case in 1996) he was seeded as first finalist already.
AliAsoag
You state 754*3* but don't take the *3* into consideration. Too
obvious, Whisper. You were once better.
Thomas R. Kettler
<7cb2ad41-3a3c-4007...@32g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
AliAsoag <ali.a...@arcor.de> wrote:
Whisper is applying the famous Whisper Fudge Factor Theorem. That is,
you add/subtract/multiply/divide whatever is necessary to prove that
Sampras is a far worthier tennis player than Federer.
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
Whisper
lol Sampras was never my fave. McEnroe was far superior in talent &
watchability. Even Fed is maybe marginally more watchable than Sampras
overall. Sampras is just the best player since Laver/Hoad - by that I
mean he beats everyone at his & their best. Certainly Fed doesn't
qualify due to his many beatdowns in slam finals v his only rival.
RzR
no kidding :) sampras is like black and white movie compared to likes of
fed and mcenroe
> Even Fed is maybe marginally more watchable than Sampras
> overall. Sampras is just the best player since Laver/Hoad - by that I
> mean he beats everyone at his & their best. Certainly Fed doesn't
> qualify due to his many beatdowns in slam finals v his only rival.
>
zzzzzz
felangey
> in every rd, not just a handful. We don't care<
Well, you can't win a lsam without a slam match, right? And I certainly
remember Fed dumping Samprasd at Wimby......historical. Seems like you
really really want to forget it?
felangey
Oh do stop, you dreary little man. Can you hear this shoit? Shame on you for
sure.
felangey
Biggest?
bob
not to mention 3 in 09.
bob
Patrick Kehoe
wrote:
> In article
> <7cb2ad41-3a3c-4007-a59e-47ea9ea51...@32g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
STOP THE MADNESS!!!
http://kenyantykoon.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/blue-chip-cookie.jpg
P
Patrick Kehoe
John Liang
> On 8/06/2011 9:11 PM, kaennorsing wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8 jun, 11:29, RzR<2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 8.6.2011. 11:26, Whisper wrote:
>
> >>> Sampras 12
> >>> Federer 12
> >>> Borg 11
> >>> Tilden 10
> >>> Nadal 9
>
> >>> This is the top 5 all time, not just open era. Rafa is outright 5th,
> >>> only 3 off the record.
>
> >> cheapskate should be second on that list since H2H in "blue chip" slam
> >> is 0:1 vs federer
>
> > Good point. I'm sure Whisper agrees too, as he so vehemently defends
> > the h2h as a tiebreaker now... And that surely settles it then that
> > Federer is so obviously much greater as well as clearly better than
> > Sampras.
>
> I've always said it's only slam finals that count. Fed never beat
>
> - Show quoted text -
It doesn't mean much if you can't get through the first two rounds.
Ali Asoag
I a certain way, he is somehow naive. I have compassion (Mitleid) for him.
steve jaros
> On 8/06/2011 9:11 PM, kaennorsing wrote:
>>> On 8.6.2011. 11:26, Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sampras 12
>>>> Federer 12
>>>> Borg 11
>>>> Tilden 10
>>>> Nadal 9
>>>
>>>> This is the top 5 all time, not just open era. Rafa is outright 5th,
>>>> only 3 off the record.
>>>
>>> cheapskate should be second on that list since H2H in "blue chip" slam
>>> is 0:1 vs federer
>>
>> the h2h as a tiebreaker now... And that surely settles it then that
>> Federer is so obviously much greater as well as clearly better than
>> Sampras.
>
>
> I've always said it's only slam finals that count. Fed never beat
> Sampras in a slam final.
No, you also said that any slam match counts. Which is good for you,
since anyone who thinks that any slam matches don't count would be a
complete idiot.
You can say a slam final counts more than any other slam match, but all
slam matches count.
--
"The partisan differences that emerged in 1972 were not caused by any
sudden
increase in the religious and cultural traditionalism of the
Republican activists but instead by the pervasive secularism and
cultural liberalism of the Democratic supporters of George McGovern."
- Georffrey Layman
steve jaros
> On 8.6.2011. 11:26, Whisper wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sampras 12
>> Federer 12
>> Borg 11
>> Tilden 10
>> Nadal 9
>>
>>
>> This is the top 5 all time, not just open era. Rafa is outright 5th,
>> only 3 off the record.
>>
>
> cheapskate should be second on that list since H2H in "blue chip" slam
> is 0:1 vs federer
Federer should be first because unlike Sampras he won all the blue-chip
slams.
--
"those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better
off without Saddam Hussein, and those who
believe today that we are not safer with his capture,
don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility
to be elected president."
- John Kerry, 12/16/03
Whisper
This is an anlysis of the 3 biggest tournaments in the game, each played
on a different surface. To count AO we need to do analysis on the 4
biggest tournaments.
There's nothing wrong with looking at the 3 biggest. We can also look
at the 2 biggest & the single biggest.
Whisper
When we look at the top 1, 2 & 3 tournaments yes Sampras has done
better. When we add the 4th biggest into the mix Fed sneaks ahead by
narrow margin.
Whisper
Doesn't mean much if you do get through them & lose in the next couple
rounds either. Thus on balance it's all meaningless except slam finals.
Whisper
I never hear anyone discussing eg Becker or Teltscher's 3rd, 4th rd slam
matches. It must be because no one cares about them.
Whisper
> On 6/8/2011 4:29 AM, RzR wrote:
>> On 8.6.2011. 11:26, Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sampras 12
>>> Federer 12
>>> Borg 11
>>> Tilden 10
>>> Nadal 9
>>>
>>>
>>> This is the top 5 all time, not just open era. Rafa is outright 5th,
>>> only 3 off the record.
>>>
>>
>> cheapskate should be second on that list since H2H in "blue chip" slam
>> is 0:1 vs federer
>
> Federer should be first because unlike Sampras he won all the blue-chip
> slams.
>
>
Winning them all doesn't top someone who won lots of the others eg.
1 1 1 does not top 7 5 0
RzR
lol
to get to the final, one has to play all the way through semis...its not
like laver to play only a final as a defending champion
steve jaros
correct, but in this case we're talking about two players who each won
12. So the guy who won all of them ranks first.
--
In South Africa there is such an ill
distribution of wealth that any form of
political freedom that doesn't touch on the
proper distribution of wealth will be meaningless.
- Steve Biko
bob
wrote:
>On 6/8/2011 7:34 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 8/06/2011 9:11 PM, kaennorsing wrote:
>>> On 8 jun, 11:29, RzR<2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8.6.2011. 11:26, Whisper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sampras 12
>>>>> Federer 12
>>>>> Borg 11
>>>>> Tilden 10
>>>>> Nadal 9
>>>>
>>>>> This is the top 5 all time, not just open era. Rafa is outright 5th,
>>>>> only 3 off the record.
>>>>
>>>> cheapskate should be second on that list since H2H in "blue chip" slam
>>>> is 0:1 vs federer
>>>
>>> Good point. I'm sure Whisper agrees too, as he so vehemently defends
>>> the h2h as a tiebreaker now... And that surely settles it then that
>>> Federer is so obviously much greater as well as clearly better than
>>> Sampras.
>>
>>
>> I've always said it's only slam finals that count. Fed never beat
>> Sampras in a slam final.
>
>No, you also said that any slam match counts. Which is good for you,
>since anyone who thinks that any slam matches don't count would be a
>complete idiot.
>
>You can say a slam final counts more than any other slam match, but all
>slam matches count.
they all count but they get progressively more important as you reach
later rounds, finals obviously most important.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 6/9/2011 1:26 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 9/06/2011 12:51 PM, steve jaros wrote:
>>> On 6/8/2011 4:29 AM, RzR wrote:
>>>> On 8.6.2011. 11:26, Whisper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sampras 12
>>>>> Federer 12
>>>>> Borg 11
>>>>> Tilden 10
>>>>> Nadal 9
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the top 5 all time, not just open era. Rafa is outright 5th,
>>>>> only 3 off the record.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cheapskate should be second on that list since H2H in "blue chip" slam
>>>> is 0:1 vs federer
>>>
>>> Federer should be first because unlike Sampras he won all the blue-chip
>>> slams.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Winning them all doesn't top someone who won lots of the others eg.
>> 1 1 1 does not top 7 5 0
>
>correct,
correct? ah, you've come quite a long way in past 5 yrs. :-)
> but in this case we're talking about two players who each won
>12. So the guy who won all of them ranks first.
won't disagree, but then again, more wimbledons is really a special
thing. serious now.
bob
steve jaros
yes. you're sane, whisper isn't.
--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
steve jaros
it is. Sampras can, should, and obviously does take great pride in being
the all-time Wimbledon King. It's what's left to him after losing the
GOAT or co-GOAT title, and it's a very significant distinction.
but when it comes to best at blue chip slams, that's not as good as
winning all of them when you didn't, so fed comes first.
bob
wrote:
whatever i say about sampras' 7 wimbledons, i think this or next yr
fed will get his 7th. he wants it too bad not to get it. the stars
will somehow line up for him.
bob
steve jaros
the only way he'll get it is IF the stars line up for him. He'll need to
catch some breaks, like nadal and joker getting hurt or suffering some
shock upset.
--
there is no doubt that the black-white
power struggle in south africa is but a
microcosm of the global confrontation
between the third world and the rich white
nations of the world.
- Steve Biko
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, in your opinion it is always better to lost in semi, qf, r16,
r32,r64, r128 then losing to a rival.
Achievement wise losing 1st round is as good as reaching the final.
Pier
wrote:
---- demented ravings snipped ------
What's a blue-chip slam?
Links?
Manco
Era. Fuck even in Open Era you have to divide as 1968-1987 and 1988-
present to emphasize when the Australian Open became equal with the
other slams. But that's too nuanced for Whimpy.